Saturday, July 04, 2015

I am delighted to say that the Kate Cayley was the winner of the prize for her collection of short stories, How You Were Born.

There was a briefflurry of mediaarticlesannouncing the award. It is an excellent collection, definitely worthy of the prize, and I am delighted that Kate Cayley won over far more well known and established writers.

I may not be the most objective person to judge, however; Kate is my sister-in-law, and I couldn't be prouder.

Decide for yourself - buy a copy of How You Were Born from your local bookstore, borrow a copy from the library, or order it online. Reading the collection is well worth your time.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Dr. Benson asked a third and final question of me based on my opening remarks in the Chesterton debate. His question is indented below; my answer follows.

Chief Justice Brian Dickson in Big M Drug Mart stated
that religious freedom is prototypical - meaning it has led the way to
other rights such as freedom of speech, assembly etc.. It would
seem then that once we have religious freedom of all including freedom
of politicians to live in accordance with his/her religious principles,
we have a greater chance of protecting all the other freedoms. This
being the case, as well as the strong evidence
(referred to in my opening comments) about various public goods (such
as charitable works, volunteerism etc.) being strongly correlated with
religious adherence, do you not agree that religion needs to be
protected from moves to narrow its public as
well as private influences?

Paragraph 123 in Big M:

Religious belief and practice are historically prototypical and,
in many ways, paradigmatic of conscientiously‑held beliefs
and manifestations and are therefore protected by the Charter . Equally
protected, and for the same reasons, are expressions and manifestations
of religious non‑belief and refusals to participate in religious
practice.

It
is my view that freedom of religion and its more general right, freedom
of conscience, are essential for a democratic country, as well as the
closely related principle of freedom of expression. So in that sense,
yes – religion deserves protection. But I do not think that it needs
additional, special privileges above and beyond those accorded to all
voluntary associations within society. Protecting the freedoms of
expression and conscience are sufficient to guarantee religious liberty.

Consider
this: religious liberty itself is constrained in countries where
citizens do not enjoy full freedom of conscience and expression. The
Economist reported in December that 19 countries punish their citizens
for apostasy - leaving their religion - and in 12 of those nations it is
punishable by death.

55 countries (including several
Western democracies) have laws against blasphemy; a conviction could
lead to a prison term in 39 nations and execution in six. Blasphemy laws
have been abused almost everywhere they are enacted, frequently to
suppress religious minorities, persecute political rivals, minority
sects, or stifle inconvenient speech. It is important to realize that
Canada is not exempt; we too have a blasphemy law, which was last used
to censor a Monty Python film, in a failed attempt to prevent its
distribution in Canada. I've never understood the rationale for
blasphemy laws; surely those who believe in an omnipotent God know He
does not need the support of a human law, while those who do not believe
in God view blasphemy as the ultimate victimless crime.

Mr.
Benson claimed in his opening remarks that "secular is a sort of
exclusionary violence to freedom and rights". Yet it is precisely the
devout, particularly those who belong to minority faiths, would should
be the most committed secularists. The principle of secularism -
government neutrality between and among faiths - is the best protection
for religious minorities that are persecuted in far too many places in
the world. Anyone genuinely concerned about religious liberty, and
freedom of conscience, must oppose tonight's resolution, for a secular
state is the only one that guarantees full freedom of religious worship
and expression. A secular state is not concerned with purported acts
heresy or apostasy. No one need smuggle a bible into a secular country; a
secular nation has no pogroms.

And let us not forget
that those that adhere to no religious tradition are equally deserving
of protection - and are often specially targeted for persecution. Even
in the United States, with its official separation of Church and State,
politics is so infused with religion that atheists are banned from
holding public office by the constitution of seven US states. Contrary
to Mr. Benson's insinuations, it is not the secular minded folk who lack
tolerance.

Regarding religious adherence and various
public goods, Professor of sociology Phil Zuckerman asks an intriguing
question: "Is a society to be considered moral if its citizens love the
Bible a lot (as in the United States), or rather, if its citizens
virtually wipe out poverty from their midst (as in Scandinavia)?"

More
generally, however, there are very good reasons for keeping God out of
politics. As lawyer and philosopher Ron Lindsay put it, "We can't base
our laws based on the word of God in part because we don't know what God
is saying. The Jewish and Islamic god says you can't eat pork; the
Christian god says that's okay. The Islamic god says Friday is a holy
day, the Jewish god says Saturday, the Christian god says Sunday. The
list of disagreements can go on and on and on. As soon as you introduce
religious precepts into a public policy discussion, you are essentially
shutting out of that discussion anyone who is not a follower of that
religion."

Let us ground our politics in evidence and
values accessible to all members of society. We can best protect freedom
of religion by keeping it as far from politics as we possibly can.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

The indented text below is Dr. Benson's second question to me based on the text of my opening remarks in the Chesterton debate. My response follows.

As did mid 19th
Century secularists you seem to suggest that "evidence based public
policy" favours the non-religious viewpoints. Many things that matter
to us in life and government policy
are not, however, susceptible to "evidence" assessments free of moral commitments.
Moral debates about such issues as euthanasia, gender-selection
abortion or certain kinds of tax policies are not resolved by "evidence"
cut off from competing interests
and beliefs. In short: we choose how to weigh evidence against a
moral background based on our beliefs. Your approach gives atheists
and agnostics the ability to have their beliefs effective in relation to
moral public policy formation but not religious
people's: how can that be fair?

Embedded in this question is a false assumption - that I am proposing we exclude the ability of religious politicians to use their moral judgement. I have never advocated for such a position, nor has any prominent secularist organization. However, all politicians, religious and non-religious alike, have a responsibility to express their goals and concerns in universal values, rather than in the terms of their particular creed. This allows all people, of all backgrounds, of all faiths (including those having none) - to fully participate in the political arena. Mr. Benson asks: How can that be fair? I respond: What could be more fair?

Mr. Benson is correct that I favour evidence based public policy. We both hold the view that while evidence must inform public policy, it cannot dictate it. One key role of elected officials is to determine the extent to which competing interests benefit from a proposed law or policy. There are often trade offs that lie at the heart of a politician's job - such as whether to raise or lower taxes (and which ones), increase or decrease spending (and where), run a surplus or deficit - all in an infinite number of possible combinations. We should use knowledge to foresee, as best we can, the consequences of various options, but ultimately a decision will be made due to priorities that come from a philosophical or moral foundation that is not based on evidence alone.

Religious groups are allowed to have their say in the public square, even if they give explicitly religious rationales for their positions. By the same token, however, politicians and judges are under no obligation to accept arguments whose only justification is religious in nature.

While same sex marriage was being considered in Canada a decade ago, religious voices were a significant part of the discussion and religious groups were very active in the debate. Canada's legislature, its courts, and society overall did not end up agreeing with the religious perspective – but all interested parties were able to express their moral beliefs about the topic.

More recently, in October, an interesting case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada about whether it is legal for a municipality in Quebec to start its meetings with a prayer. The Court has yet to render its verdict.

In addition to the plaintiff and the defendant, there were several interveners that presented before the Supreme Court: the Canadian Secular Alliance, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Faith and Freedom Alliance, and the Association of Catholic Parents of Québec. It is simply not the case that "religious beliefs are not permitted in the public sphere." Religious voices are being heard, even if their arguments are sometimes rejected. Religious organizations engage all levels of government, through direct lobbying, raising money, taking out advertisements, voting with their feet, just like any other group. This cannot be accurately described as discrimination.

Mr. Benson: I am here tonight because I am intensely concerned about fairness. To ensure justice and equal participation from all members of society, we need only apply the criteria that you yourself laid out just a few minutes ago - that we judge arguments based on their fairness, reasonableness, and general applicability. If we combine that with the ideas from my opening address - that public policy be based on the principles of human experience, objective evidence, reason, human empathy and compassion - then we have a way to determine which laws, actions, and policies are in the common interest, whether one's altruism is motivated by religious faith or whether the inspiration to public service stems from a humanist philosophy. This is democratic. This is just. This is fair.

Saturday, March 07, 2015

The format of the Chesterton debate allowed Dr. Benson and I to read each other's opening statements in advance of the event and to submit three questions based on them. Below is Dr. Benson's first question to me (indented), and my response.

You say you are
opposed to theocracy because it forces religious viewpoints on a diverse
society and we don't disagree about this. However, you don't address
the existence of what Catholic philosopher
Jacques Maritain once described as "atheistictheocracy". Your view, which would exclude religious influences but not non-religious influences in the public sphere, thereby privileges atheism and agnosticism in direct contradiction
to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Chamberlain (2002). If
all citizens are to be treated equally, how would you guard against
"atheistic theocracy" if you don't allow religious beliefs in the public
sphere?

This question, interpreted literally, contradicts itself. The definition of theocracy is "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority." One cannot be both an atheist - one who looks at the thousands of gods humanity has worshipped over its history, and does not believe any of them actually exist - and be ruled by religious doctrine. A direct answer to a contradictory question cannot exist.

Therefore I hope you will indulge me if I take a figurative approach to Mr. Benson's words, and address instead what I think is the intended spirit of his question. His concern is about a state dogmatically and inflexibly ruled by an unbelieving autocrat, who also demands strict adherence from all public figures to an anti-theistic ideology. Mr. Benson is worried about the possibility of an atheistic dictatorship.

However, tonight we are not talking about atheism. This was last year's debate topic. We are discussing secularism - and the two are quite distinct concepts. Equal treatment among all citizens means privileging neither religious nor anti-religious voices. Supporting government neutrality in matters of religion, where the government neither supports nor suppresses religious expression, is the secularist stance. Secularists stand against government coercing people to abandon their religion as much as government enforcing religious dictates upon those who believe differently, or not at all.

Secularism does not privilege atheism or agnosticism. Secularism is the compromise position. Which Mr. Benson holds as well, since he has stated that he does not wish to force his (or anyone else's) religious viewpoints on society at large.

Let's examine the status quo in Canada, posit the secular stance, and imagine, for a moment, what a dystopian atheistic dictatorship would look like:

Today God is mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in our national anthem. A secular state would not mention God in either. An atheistic dictatorship would use both to promulgate the State's position that there is no God.

Today many legislatures and municipal councils in Canada start their official proceedings with the Lord's prayer, a Christian invocation, a generic theistic supplication, or with rotating orations from various faiths. A secular state would have elected officials spend their time doing their job, what they are paid to do - tending to the earthly interests of society. An atheistic dictatorship would have these governmental bodies start their proceedings with an explicit affirmation that God is an imaginary entity.

Today organizations whose only purpose and activity is to advance religious beliefs enjoy tax credits and subsidies of over one BILLION dollars per year. A secular state would grant no financial privileges to organizations promoting or discouraging faith. Charitable status would be granted to whichever groups perform charitable deeds, such as feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. An atheistic dictatorship would grant charitable status and other financial privileges to organizations whose only purpose is to denigrate religious belief.

Today exemptions are granted from generally applicable laws on the basis of religious beliefs, but are denied to those who object on other grounds. Examples include working on the Sabbath or other religious holidays; nurses handling I.V. bags; and students carrying weapons in schools. A secular state would either a) grant no such exemptions, or b) permit them for all deeply held philosophical commitments, whether their source was from religion, culture, or personal conscience. An atheistic dictatorship would grant exceptions only for those who ground their objections in their atheism.

Canada is a nation of considerable religious privilege. Secularists argue for government neutrality in matters of religion. Should an atheistic dictatorship arise, Mr. Benson can depend on me and all secularist organizations to fight against these hypothetical discriminatory policies. For now, our efforts are dedicated to combating the very real injustices that exist today.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

On Friday evening, I debated Dr. Iain Benson on whether "one’s religious convictions should play a significant role in how they conduct themselves in political affairs."

I took the negative side of the resolution, and below is my fifteen minute opening address to make the case for government neutrality in matters of religion.

There
is a scene in the 1971 film "Fiddler on the Roof" where the rabbi of a
poor, oppressed Jewish village in pre-revolutionary Russia is asked to
say few words about the Tsar. He responds, "A blessing for the Tsar? Of
course! May God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us!"

It
is natural and appropriate for believers to have freedom OF
religion, and it is equally right and just that others should have
freedom FROM it. In this way, individuals are free to conduct
themselves according to their personal or shared
religious (or not) viewpoint.

But tonight's debate is not about
private behaviour. This evening we are discussing political affairs:
Using the power and influence of
one's public position to pressure others to conform to your creed's
mores, co-opting governmental institutions to serve sectarian ends, or
legislating on the basis of religion. These activities should be
rejected.

On the other hand, it would be foolish to suggest
that a public avowal of a particular faith
would disqualify an individual from an elected or appointed role in public
office. I propose that devout Catholics and ardent atheists are both welcome to fully
participate in public and political life. On their own time, those with religious
convictions can attend the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque of their
choice while serving any function in government or politics.

I
further propose that Catholics should not be forced to abide by the
strictures of
(say) Hinduism, and vice-versa. Both should be free to follow their
respective faiths. I, as an adherent of neither, would object to being
coerced into submitting to the dictates of either. In addition,
religious groups generally desire minimal
interference from governments in doctrinal affairs. Clearly, then, all
of us have a personal interest in opposing tonight's resolution. For
once one religion can impose its tenets upon the populace, there is
little to stop other faiths from doing the same if they gain political
power at a later date. Let us keep any religion - and therefore all
religions - at a safe distance from our political institutions.

The Supreme Court of Canada agrees. In 2004, it wrote: "As a general rule, the state
refrains from acting in matters relating to religion. It is limited to
setting up a social and legal framework in which [...] members of the
various denominations are able to associate freely in order to exercise
their freedom of worship."

This is a common theme in Canadian
jurisprudence. Eight years later, it also wrote: "State
neutrality is assured when the state neither
favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it
shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of
having no religious beliefs whatsoever."

I endorse
this sentiment, and I think many of you agree with it as well. I hope I
can convince the rest of you that this principle is the best means to
secure liberty and human flourishing. If I succeed, everyone here
tonight should agree that one’s
religious convictions should *not* play a significant role in how they
conduct themselves in political affairs.

This
does not mean we should dismiss any action on the basis that it might
be motivated by religious faith. As Barack Obama put it: "We are
under obligation in public life to
translate our religious values into moral terms that all people can
share, including those who are not believers."

On the thousands
of issues that politicians must negotiate, the world's major religions
are often silent, contradictory, or ambiguous. One's religion should not
play a significant role in political affairs because, for the vast
majority of political decisions, there is no clear religious course of
action. And in those cases where sacred scrolls do detail specific
punishments for particular misdeeds, we in Canada often cheerfully
disregard them - and this is as it should be. I am confident no one
supports the Biblical injunction that would force a woman to marry her
rapist. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29] While many here may disapprove of
adultery, none present would advocate killing those who cheat on their
spouses, as the Bible commands. [Leviticus 20:10]

In other
areas, religious and materialist philosophies each incorporate such
disparate perspectives that neither can claim to own a side of an issue.
Look at climate change. Some religious folk believe God
has a plan for humanity and would never allow us to go extinct, so we
may as well
strip mine the earth.
Others with a religious bent see themselves as stewards of Creation
and therefore feel a moral obligation to protect the environment.
Conversely, those with an entirely materialist viewpoint may believe their
financial self-interest lies with the continued development of
Canada's tar sands and
so vehemently argue against global warming. And many non-religious people view
rising sea levels as an existential threat to several island nations, and
are therefore impelled to advocate for a strong global carbon emissions
cap. One's politics cannot be determined by one's faith, or its absence.

The
same can be said of morality. I often hear that religion and ethics are
one and the same - indeed, that the source of all morals is religion,
or that an ethical life is impossible without the values
spelled out in some holy text. Though commonly repeated, it is easy to
see this is not the case.

It is undeniable that many deeply religious people commit
abominable acts such as covering up child abuse or detonating suicide bombs in
public areas.

It is also true, as most of you likely know
through personal
experience, that most non-believers
lead decent lives. I find it interesting that statistically, atheists
are significantly under-represented in prisons throughout North America.

The point is one's morality says nothing about the extent of their
belief, and one's piety implies nothing about their basic human decency.

And though many with deeply held religious convictions are highly
moral, the same cannot always be said of religious institutions. The
Reverend Martin
Luther King Jr., in
his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, was sharply critical. On racial segregation and discrimination, the most prominent and
important social issue of the time, he wrote: "In
deep disappointment I have wept over
the laxity of the church."

Perhaps the declining political
influence of religious institutions is not a bad thing. University of
London professor Stephen Law observed, “if declining
levels of religiosity were the main cause of…social ills, we should
expect those countries that are now the least religious to have the
greatest problems. The reverse is true.” According to the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, those states in
the US with the best quality of
life are among the least publicly pious (such as Vermont
and New Hampshire). This generalizes globally. Democratic nations where
religion plays little role in political affairs, such as Sweden,
Norway, Japan, Australia, and the Netherlands, fare much
better on just about every sociological indicator of well-being.

All
individuals, including those who are active in political affairs, have
the right to make their own choices, but not to demand that others do
likewise. If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't have intercourse
with someone of the same sex. But criminalizing gay relationships or
opposing equal marriage is an affront to equality, justice, morality,
and human rights. Enforcing one's own religious strictures upon others
breeds societal ills.

That is why a politician should set aside
religious dictates when acting as a representative of the government to
shape public policy.

As a thought experiment, let's examine the consequences if religious beliefs truly dictated the laws of the land.

A parliament legislating according Catholic doctrine, for
example,
would ban the sale of condoms to men and the prescriptions for the pill
for women. If orthodox Jews were in power, they would outlaw the
consumption of all pork and shellfish. Jehovah's Witnesses would make
life-saving blood transfusions
illegal. A Hindu regime would outlaw eating beef, while a
government legislating according to Muslim morality would criminalize
the consumption of alcohol. Most of these would forbid working on the
Sabbath, though
there is some disagreement between them on when the Sabbath starts, and
indeed on which
day of the week it falls.

Can anyone genuinely argue
that life would be better with no birth control, no steak, no lobster,
arbitrary restrictions on life-saving medical procedures, a return to
the days of Prohibition, or no bacon? (Please, let us at least keep
bacon.)

But one need not resort to hypothetical situations. Where religion and politics meet, tragedy and injustice often follow.

In
Ireland in October 2012, Savita Halappanavar was pregnant and gravely
ill with a serious infection. Doctors refused her request for a
medically justified abortion because of a religiously motivated law that
forbade removing even a miscarried foetus, no matter the risk to the
mother's life. As a result, both mother and foetus died. This egregious
violation of a woman's basic human rights, and other recent examples,
are the direct result of religion's influence in politics.

In a secular democracy no Church can dictate legal,
social, or educational policy - and in return government does seek to
control the practice of religion, so long as those practices do not
interfere with the rights of others. As my father often said, "My right to swing my fist stops at the bridge of your nose."

The
principle of equality is evident when there is one law for all.
Injustice inevitably follows when the laws of the land are subject to a
theological veto, or when they apply one set of rules to the religious
(or to those of a particular sect), and another for everyone else.

Mohandas Gandhi rejected the principle of tonight's resolution. He said,
"If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by
my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state
has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular
welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on,
but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern."

To
maximize freedom for all, let us not inject politics into religion. Who
here
tonight wants the government to be ever more involved with the Church?
Does anyone want legislators or judges, whose expertise typically
resides outside of ecclesiastical matters, to be the final arbiter on
difficult religious and theological questions? I certainly do not. Do
you?

To maximize freedom for all, let us not inject religion into
politics. Because most of us have chosen at some point to use condoms
or go
on the pill; because chances are someone you know is better off because
they obtained a divorce from an
abusive spouse and are now happily remarried; because there are those
who have access to
medical benefits from their same-sex partners; because Professor Benson
and I are able to publicly
debate the role of religion in the political realm with neither of us
fearing any social or legal reprisals; for all these reasons, let us all
breathe a sigh of relief we do not live in a country run on the basis
of religious dogma, where any of these might not be possible or could
lead to incarceration. Instead, let us be
thankful that our laws and government are largely based on secular
principles of human experience, objective evidence, reason, and human
empathy
and compassion.

Finally,
there is a word to describe when religion dominates politics:
theocracy. I would like to give the last word to Professor Benson. From
his 2013 article: "Theocracy seems to corrupt religious proposition by
using
the instruments of coercion that are essential to law in service of
religions." I agree wholeheartedly - and therefore urge you, as well, to
prevent the corruption of religious faith by rejecting the proposition
that
one's religious convictions should play a significant role in how they
conduct themselves in political affairs.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Tickets are still available for my debate on Friday, February 27 on whether "One's religious beliefs should play a significant role in political affairs."

I am in the final stages of preparation and think it will be an interesting debate. As it is being organized by the Archdiocese of Toronto, it is likely that a significant majority of the audience will be Catholic, and have a predisposition to favour the arguments of my opponent, Iain Benson (a Catholic scholar).

It is my hope to persuade many of these people that it is in their interest to support government neutrality in matters of religion - that is, the secular stance.